Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
AmandaPanda

All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

Recommended Posts

I did appreciate the beginning of the show, where she basically gave a Weapons for Dummies segment. Turns out the shooter had the bump stock she described. Tonight should be interesting, with the Vegas update and Trumps disastrous trip to PR. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Is Rachel off today, Tuesday?  It was confusing, because I think her show time started during a press conference, then I saw Joy, but not sure if was filling in for Rachel. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, jjj said:

Is Rachel off today, Tuesday?  It was confusing, because I think her show time started during a press conference, then I saw Joy, but not sure if was filling in for Rachel. 

Yeah, it was very confusing.  So much Vegas shooter coverage on MSNBC & CNN -- I just can't.  Too grim & way too much for me.  Both networks peppered in a tiny bit of Trump-in-Puerto Rico coverage.  I tuned in Rach's time-slot -- to see Joy covering Puerto Rico & Trump very, very, very briefly.  She did a good interview with the San Juan mayor, who was awesome & told exactly what she thought of Trump's visit.  And then Joy was onto the grim Vegas shooter coverage.  So I was in & out quick.

Where was Rach?  Any predictions on when Rach will be allowed to talk politics again?  Sheesh, plenty of Russia stuff going on, tied in with Manafort & Javanka & Facebook news.

Jeez, MSNBC, take a fucking break (for more than 2 seconds) from the Vegas shooter stuff & let Rach talk politics, DAMMIT!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

It's been so much Vegas, and much of it repetitive.   I'm glad Joy put a little focus on Puerto Rico tonight.  We can be doing more for PR, and it doesn't look like this administration is in a hurry to help, nor are they fully committed to it like they were in Houston and Florida.   Without media pressure, I don't think anything will get better for PR.

Edited by izabella
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, attica said:

Yay! Rachel won an Emmy for her Kellyanne Conway interview! Well done TRMS!

Is that what she won it for? Yay for Rachel, even if I didn't particularly like that interview. What was her other nomination for? And did you see the hand-off with Lawrence? Rachel was so funny, getting all shy and blushing and putting her papers up in front of her face as Lawrence teased her about being so easy to embarrass with compliments.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Oh God, Rach, please promise you'll NEVER again have Smellyanne & her constant barrage of stupid lies stinking up your show.

Yeah, what's the award for? It was ten minutes of KAC nonsense and avoidance and then Rachel saying they were friends like that's a good thing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Yeah, what's the award for? It was ten minutes of KAC nonsense and avoidance and then Rachel saying they were friends like that's a good thing.

It was considerably longer than 10 minutes, IIRC, and Rachel asked a lot of the right questions.  It's just that KAC lied her ass off...which Rachel noted angrily, somewhat later, particularly with respect to KAC's lies about Roger Ailes's involvement in the campaign.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

It was considerably longer than 10 minutes, IIRC, and Rachel asked a lot of the right questions.  It's just that KAC lied her ass off...which Rachel noted angrily, somewhat later, particularly with respect to KAC's lies about Roger Ailes's involvement in the campaign.

KAC lying her ass off was what I was referring to--the more time she was on screen the more lying she did. The right questions are irrelevant when talking to her.  I can't remember whether I saw her later comments about it or not, but I remember having the usual frustration at listening to KAC lie. The interviewer barely mattered since she was just going to spin off into a talking point no matter. I'm not criticizing Rachel, it genuinely surprises me that of all her shows that would get an award because of her answers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wish we could stop reliving the 2016 election. It's depressing.

I watched the first half hour last night then moved on.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, stormy said:

I watched the first half hour last night then moved on.

Then you missed a great bit at the end about FEMA in Puerto Rico. Her producers had no trouble driving a road that FEMA is saying, "Well if the roads are dangerous, we won't send people in." It's a short piece but well worth watching. 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/media-accesses-puerto-rico-roads-fema-won-t-drive-with-aid-1064846915694

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ahisma said:

Then you missed a great bit at the end about FEMA in Puerto Rico. Her producers had no trouble driving a road that FEMA is saying, "Well if the roads are dangerous, we won't send people in." It's a short piece but well worth watching. 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/media-accesses-puerto-rico-roads-fema-won-t-drive-with-aid-1064846915694

Thanks for posting this.  I tuned out after 5 minutes -- cuz watching stuff on the Billy Bush tape or looking at Jennifer Palmieri whining & crying for the 50 billionth time, I have zero interest in.

Was surprised, puzzled & disappointed Rach wasn't covering Trump & birth control.  Did she discuss this later on -- or the disappearance of the latest data on Puerto Rico from the FEMA website?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel won a second Emmy on Thursday for her story on the Flint water crisis.  This Emmy was in the category  "Outstanding News Discussion and Analysis".  I could not be more pleased, both for Rachel and for Flint, which has been treated deplorably by the state and federal government.  I've been to Flint, and it was already a city struggling, well before the water crisis.  I have said on this list before that if this had been one of the wealthy suburbs around Detroit, (a) the water redirection would never have happened in the first place, and (2) this would have been over within a month the first time a high lead level was detected in water, no matter what it cost to re-pipe a town.  Rachel's focus on this has not solved the problem, but at least has kept the residents from feeling completely abandoned -- and I think whatever progress has been made was largely a result of her attention.     http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2017/10/rachel_maddow_wins_emmy_for_fl.html

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Was surprised, puzzled & disappointed Rach wasn't covering Trump & birth control.  Did she discuss this later on -- or the disappearance of the latest data on Puerto Rico from the FEMA website?

Unfortunately, no, not this week. Fingers crossed for next week. Also on Friday, Sessions revoked the idea that transgender workers are covered under equal protection based on sex. 

Coincidentally, since Rachel was talking about the giant news day that dumped Hurricane Matthew, Russian interference, Billy Bush tape, and Podesta emails all in the same day, we are currently in a news cycle about the Las Vegas shooter, Puerto Rico, Rex Tillerson's feelings, Mnuchin's military flights, Jared and Ivanka's emails, Jared and Ivanka's narrow escape from a fraud indictment, birth control rollback, trans rights rollback, new tropical storm/hurricane coming—and presumably, at some point, a tax reform plan. There's only a five-pound bag to fit it in...

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

She nailed FEMA on that "dangerous road" bullshit.   If they were able to get up their earlier to hand out forms to sign, but didn't bring water or supplies, why say you couldn't get up there? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I love how Rach is now ALL OVER Facebook & holding them responsible for denying for so long the existence of fake Russian propaganda ads against Hillary.  And now this story WaPo broke about fake Russian propaganda ads against Hillary on Google.  The WaPo reporter who broke this story was really interesting.  She said exactly what I've been thinking -- that Facebook & Twitter have only admitted to fake Russian propaganda ads against Hillary for about a 100 thou or so.  That's nothing.  The reporter said there was probably way more than that.  Hope Rach has her back.  I suspect she will cuz Rach said she's fascinated by this story.  Good.  Stay on it, Rach!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I get Rachel's temptation to suspend her 'don't watch what they say, watch what they do' edict for Corker, but he ain't done nothing yet but flap his gums. Phooey.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I love how Rach is now ALL OVER Facebook & holding them responsible for denying for so long the existence of fake Russian propaganda ads against Hillary.  And now this story WaPo broke about fake Russian propaganda ads against Hillary on Google.  The WaPo reporter who broke this story was really interesting.  She said exactly what I've been thinking -- that Facebook & Twitter have only admitted to fake Russian propaganda ads against Hillary for about a 100 thou or so.  That's nothing.  The reporter said there was probably way more than that.  Hope Rach has her back.  I suspect she will cuz Rach said she's fascinated by this story.  Good.  Stay on it, Rach!

This is why Rachel is the best in the business. CNN and others do not cover what she is covering. They cover inane tweets that are meant to distract us from the truth.

The Russia interference is another 9/11 and nobody seems to care.  It is why it is so insidious and dangerous to our democracy. I am originally from a Banana Republic, where foreign countries have had a history of meddling in our elections.   There is nothing worst than the populace having no faith in democratic elections.  It leads to so many problems.  Americans are already apathetic when it comes to elections and voting. Once the public loses faith in elections being fair and honest. The country will never be the same ever again. Gerrymandering and the gutting of the voters right act is another impediment to fair and accurate elections.  

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, attica said:

I get Rachel's temptation to suspend her 'don't watch what they say, watch what they do' edict for Corker, but he ain't done nothing yet but flap his gums. Phooey.

As far as Corker goes, I think Rach is being consistent with her "watch what they do" philosophy.  Predictably, Trump went nuts on Twitter, insulting Corker -- and Bannon went out of his way to knock him.  Rach may not be a fan of Corker, but she clearly admired him for speaking out, seemingly not caring what would happen next.  We know what happens next, whenever anyone speaks out against Trump. 

Ah, well, Rach gets going when anything involves stepping on free speech.  I think that's more about where she's going with Corker.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Tremendous segments on Weinstein. Good to see Ronan Farrow with such impressive reporting.

Edited by attica
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, I was impressed with Ronan Farrow. I'm a new viewer and hadn't seen him before.  Imagine my surprise when I looked him up and find out his parents are Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, and he's a Rhodes Scholar, and he went to Yale Law School, and he worked with Secretary of State Clinton, and he's all of 29.  I especially liked that he dissed NBC for not reporting the Weinstein story first.  This is a big part of the problem; companies/networks/publications didn't report on it earlier due to potential retaliation.  I hope that culture is changing. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Fergula said:

Imagine my surprise when I looked him up and find out his parents are Mia Farrow and Woody Allen,

Or Mia Farrow and Frank Sinatra. *cough* *cough*  ;)

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, she did most of the show on harassment - that's very powerful stuff.  And, if you didn't see her conversation with Lawrence at the turnover segment, she pointed out that so many women whose dreams were to work in Hollywood, had that destroyed by Weinstein.  So many just quit the business.

Really?  Who would ever think that they could threaten Ronan Farrow?  I am not discounting the bravery he took in moving forward but honestly, I don't think he gives a fuck what others say.  He has been so vocal about what Woody Allen did to his sister Dylan and I can't imagine he hasn't been pressured to shut up about that. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

One of the super bits about Ronan's reporting is how thorough it is. He documents that the stories told to him by victims were contemporaneously shared with others in their lives. Which is a lawyerly thing to do, as it bolsters the 'she said' part of the argument. That he tracked down all the friends, family members, and colleagues to confirm all of that stuff is tremendous.

You know, as a person with ladyparts, I've experienced my share of harassment and abuse, just by living in the world. Nothing to be done about it but get through and move on, for the most part; it's just part of the background noise of being female in public. I've worked for harassers, I've worked with harassers, I've managed harassers. Clients have been harassers. Customers have been harassers. (Let's not start counting the strangers, we'd be here all day.) And all the companies just wanted the problem to go away; none of them ever took the women's side. Nobody was ever fired, or even reprimanded, contracts were always renewed, until something else happened, and the person went away without ever having been addressed as an harasser. So it never surprises me that this kind of thing goes on.

What I'm particularly struck by in  Rachel and Ronan's recounting of Weinstein's case, however, is the energy he expends, the money he spends, on the after-the-fact stuff of these encounters. It's amazing he ever made a movie, with all the time he spends smearing these poor women who spurn him. Plus, all the work he does to engineer the encounters in the first place. Gotta have a hotel room. Gotta have a meeting. Appointments to be made. Robes to get ready. Showers to take. Then the pressure, pressure, pressure. Then, the payback. The PR firms hired. The damaging gossip items placed. The non-disclosure agreements drawn up and doublechecked and executed. notarized. The badmouthing for years as these women's careers try to move forward against this wall of Weinstein. (The women at Fox were sidelined and fired, but they weren't prevented from working elsewhere, I don't think. Correct me if that's wrong) That's a full-time occupation, and not a little economic fucking stimulation. That's paying attention to these individual women for decades, even as he moves on to the next. For all the resources at his command to get his jollies any other way, it's telling that this is the way he worked it, time after time. So we have to conclude that this is how he liked it. Like a video game racking up points, leveling up again and again by victimizing woman after woman. It's their pain and fear that turns him on and he'll never relinquish it.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

attica, yeah the power aspect of it was clearly part of the turn on for him.  So gross.  I actually got really weepy during the handover segment with Lawrence, thinking about the stuff you outlined that has happened to me as well (and probably every woman posting here) and just how depressing it is.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Once again, I really admire Rachel.  I thought she sticks strictly to covering politics.  After all, there is plenty of Trump & Russia news for her to cover.  But she didn't even touch on the political slant to the Weinstein story -- which were his vast donations to Dems.  So clearly, she wanted to spend so much time on this story, regardless of whether it was about politics, because it touched her deeply & she felt it was important to cover & she wanted to speak her mind on it.  Kudos, Rach!

Ronan?  Look, he's obviously extemely intelligent & articulate.  And his looks & family background don't hurt, but they're really irrelevant to his ability as a reporter.  Have to admit, while he's talking, I occasionally space out & think -- Man, this guy is the absolute spitting image of Sinatra, except with blonde hair.

I admire Ronan's enthusiasm.  It's great.  It's also a problem for him.  He was getting over-excited & kinda scattered.  Anyone notice how Rach was constantly talking over him & interrupting him?  Rachel ain't Chris Matthews.  She NEVER does that kinda bullshit.  She was doing this because he was all over the place & she was trying to direct him.

Ronan has a lot of potential.  Not sure if TV is right for him.  He had a show on MSNBC that failed quickly.  Maybe he needs some kind of coaching, or TV just isn't the right venue for him.  In any case, it was absolutely brave of him to go forth so strenuously with this story.  Going against Weinstein was tough enough, but NBC too?  Eek!  

And was Rach giving a bit of a subtle jab to NBC too -- for passing on Ronan's story?  Really?  Er, huh?  Guess Rach knows her power & just how important she is to NBC if she feels she's in a position to do that.  Wow.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel was low-key shading NBC throughout for letting this story go. She kept coming back to it. I think she gave so much time to the story because she thought it should have been broken by the NBC family, and good for her for doing that.

I just found out recently that Ronan is the boyfriend of Jon Lovett, of the Pod Save America and Lovett or Leave It podcasts. Made me love him even more. :-)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Once again, I really admire Rachel.  I thought she sticks strictly to covering politics.  After all, there is plenty of Trump & Russia news for her to cover.  But she didn't even touch on the political slant to the Weinstein story -- which were his vast donations to Dems.  So clearly, she wanted to spend so much time on this story, regardless of whether it was about politics, because it touched her deeply & she felt it was important to cover & she wanted to speak her mind on it.  Kudos, Rach!

Ronan?  Look, he's obviously extemely intelligent & articulate.  And his looks & family background don't hurt, but they're really irrelevant to his ability as a reporter.  Have to admit, while he's talking, I occasionally space out & think -- Man, this guy is the absolute spitting image of Sinatra, except with blonde hair.

I admire Ronan's enthusiasm.  It's great.  It's also a problem for him.  He was getting over-excited & kinda scattered.  Anyone notice how Rach was constantly talking over him & interrupting him?  Rachel ain't Chris Matthews.  She NEVER does that kinda bullshit.  She was doing this because he was all over the place & she was trying to direct him.

Ronan has a lot of potential.  Not sure if TV is right for him.  He had a show on MSNBC that failed quickly.  Maybe he needs some kind of coaching, or TV just isn't the right venue for him.  In any case, it was absolutely brave of him to go forth so strenuously with this story.  Going against Weinstein was tough enough, but NBC too?  Eek!  

And was Rach giving a bit of a subtle jab to NBC too -- for passing on Ronan's story?  Really?  Er, huh?  Guess Rach knows her power & just how important she is to NBC if she feels she's in a position to do that.  Wow.

I was thinking the same thing ... Sinatra+Mia=Ronan ... beautiful man!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I did not like Ronan's MSNBC show at all, but he seems dogged about pursuing this story.  It still was a little too much about him ("I was threatened with lawsuits"), but he is fine in small doses.  But I agree, good to look at! 

I think it was Rachel who was talking  about the odd use of apostrophes and quotation marks in the Trump tweets.  (like "Liddle' Bob Corker") -- I would be fine if she started to use air quotes when she refers to the "President". 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent show tonite, Rach!  I didn't share your giddiness, Rach, in Zinke's disgraceful use of taxpayer dollars for his travel amusement cuz it makes me wanna vomit.

While the Weinstein story is clearly important & has unfolded in unexpected ways, I'm really glad Rachel prioritized her coverage of it.  Puerto Rico should come first.  People are sick & dying there & Rachel's persistent coverage may put the spotlight on it that it so desperately needs.  I suspect Puerto Rico is her new Flint.  Good going, Rach.

Also very interesting was her guest, the journalist who broke the story about the billionaire who supposedly recommended Manafort for the Trump campaign manager position.  So now we find out it was Manafort who was begging this billionaire to recommend him to Trump.  Okaaaaay.  Keep connecting those Russian dots, Rach.

And yeah, Rach was absolutely right to go out of her way to congratulate Jody Kantor on breaking the Weinstein story.  She was the one who broke it first -- not Ronan.  And Rachel brought up a really great point on whether the actresses whose careers were ruined by Weinstein when they rejected his advances could ever receive damages in court.  Well, Jody can't answer such questions, but what she said that I thought was fascinating was how her clever investigation started this -- that she followed all the settled legal cases & started from there.  Wow!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I was glad that Rachel for the most part got off the Weinstein story tonight and got back to Russia and Puerto Rico. I'm not for a minute trying to say that Weinstein isn't a loathsome person but c'mon, he's certainly not the only sleazeball in Hollywood. The story of the casting couch stars many many famous and powerful men. I mean, hell, there's one sitting in the Oval Office.

My theory is that the mainstream media, after having spent so many zillions of hours covering Trump and his every utterance, were thrilled that someone connected to the Democrats popped up so that they could get back to their bullshit equivalence game and give the other side some equal time whether it's a national news story or not.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The letter about the medical staff "spa day" in Puerto Rico does not yet seem to be in any other media outlets, and the "spa day" is shameful.  The parts of the letter that Rachel showed on the screen were quite detailed, with names of medical personnel and price lists for services listed in the letter.  

What on earth is going on there, with all those resources sitting in the port and so few residents ("U.S. citizens", as Rachel keeps reminding us) having access to treatment. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Wait a minute -- did Rach do a Three Stooges' woo-woo-woo to describe Trump's dopey lawyer, who he used in his ridiculous lawsuit against Bill Maher?  Hee, hee!  

I got lost on the Russia connection with that dopey Trump lawyer & the Bill Maher orangutang lawsuit, but it seemed like a doozy.  Rach should get another Emmy for Puerto Rico & Russian dot connecting.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

What kind of world do we live in when that Spa Day happening. 

I don't pay attention to Bill Maher so I don't know if I knew the Trump orangutan story before she talked about it.  But jeez.  Who has that much of a lack of sense of humor to actually prove your father isn't an orangutan.  Its not really funny but jeez.  Most of us would just ignore it. But that's Trump exactly. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Who has that much of a lack of sense of humor to actually prove your father isn't an orangutan.

And I hate to be That Guy, but a birth certificate doesn't prove parentage*. Let's get the blood work!

*It does prove citizenship handily though, so maybe this is just another topic about which the Orange Menace knows nothing.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

My cat definitely responded to Rachel playing "the sound" of the signal targeted at the U.S. embassy in Cuba.  I wondered if they had any cats or dogs at the embassy, because they would have certainly let the humans know the noise was distressing. 

That was almost a very short interview with Michael Beschloss:  "Has any previous U.S. President ever been so determined to overturn every aspect of the previous President?"  "No."  Everyone is stopping short of saying this is more than a deep dislike of Obama/Democratic policies.  It is so personal.  I'd be happy if someone would just say "neurotic".  I think maybe they have said "obsessive".  Beschloss seemed only to be able to shake his head at this, after making a few historical, far less insidious, comparisons. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, jjj said:

My cat definitely responded to Rachel playing "the sound" of the signal targeted at the U.S. embassy in Cuba.

Mine too! My dog didn't wiggle but my cat did not like it. And if the sound had been washed for TV, just imagine what the original sounded like.

8 minutes ago, jjj said:

Everyone is stopping short of saying this is more than a deep dislike of Obama/Democratic policies. 

Trump had no agenda during his campaign, no specifics to his limited talking points except that his ideas were "tremendous, beautiful, you will love it" (quotes!). Now we know the reason he didn't give specifics is his agenda is to reverse every single legislative action that Obama made. He is tearing down Obama's work like he torn down buildings in NYC to build his own crappy, gaudy, gold-plated towers.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

The first segment tonight, Monday, about how Presidents and administrations have recognized the deaths of soldiers and provided condolences to families:  Watch her face when she gets to the part where she reports on Trump saying President Obama never made calls to the families of fallen soldiers.  She is somewhere on the continuum of truly distressed to completely livid.  Righteously emotional Rachel who is struggling but keeps her feelings under control while reporting atrocious facts may be my favorite Rachel.   (I think the coughing that prematurely ended the segment was just coughing.) 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

I too have mid-40s onset of allergies!  I feel your pain, Rachel.  And it's always worse in the autumn than the spring.  Nothing helps, although I don't usually end up with congestion and coughing.  For me, it's my eyes - itching, watering, redness.  I had to give up wearing contact lenses, and yes, I often look as if I have been weeping.

Topic:  Why does Trump continue to lie about everything?  Doesn't he realize when he just makes shit up, that it will be disproved almost immediately?  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Why does Trump continue to lie about everything

I think its almost like that line from Seinfeld - its not a lie if you believe it.  As long as its anti Obama or anti Hillary it must be true. 

Poor Rachel.  Allergies are the worst.   

And, thanks Rachel for pointing out what asswipes the Bush Administration were.   I hate that just because the Trump Administration is awful, people are being nicer about the Bush Administration. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size